PC LOAD LETTER:I view Libertarianism and Communism in the same light: two philosophies that can only exist in theory, and are in direct opposition to the reality of what humans behave like.

Basically...and both avow the same conclusion through different means: Libertarians think everyone will get what they want through the free market alone. Communists think everyone will get what they want through the state alone.

The truth lies in between. Probably not with laissez-faire capitalism (which is probably the closest to the utopian libertarianism they want, except for the irrational actors, of course), probably not Marxism, probably pretty close to what certain European socialist states look like now: A well-regulated market backed by a government that does not want to cannibalize itself. Of course, the faults in that way lie with other state actors that can't hold up their end of the bargain (see Greece).

Pocket_Fisherman:I think its cute when people think that being a libertarian means you don't help others.

I'm a libertarian (atheist) and donate about 10k locally a year and run two food drives. Being a libertarian doesn't mean you don't help, it means you don't force other people to help via government.

No, it means you don't really care about the plight of unfortunate people all that much. You might still get a certain amount of pleasure from personal altruism, but that's a pretty narrow view of helping people.

DamnYankees:Pocket_Fisherman: I think its cute when people think that being a libertarian means you don't help others.

I'm a libertarian (atheist) and donate about 10k locally a year and run two food drives. Being a libertarian doesn't mean you don't help, it means you don't force other people to help via government.

No, it means you don't really care about the plight of unfortunate people all that much. You might still get a certain amount of pleasure from personal altruism, but that's a pretty narrow view of helping people.

Mind you, "f*ck you I got mine" is still a perfectly valid philosophy, it's just not a very nice one. I only find it despicable when someone tells me that they're an ayn rand objectivist and some flavor of Christian.

I'm guessing hipster dude in the article wasn't much of a libertarian, now thinks hes a Buddhist and will lack onto some other "alternative" philosophy in a few years.

Their needs to be a test before you can call yourself a libertarian. I've met hard core moon bad socialists, who claim to be libertarian. You can't give up a philosophy you never really understood to start with.

I read the whole article expecting a few clues that this was either written ironically or satire. Except for his use of interlocutor it all looks legit.

So I will bite. Same thing happened to me, except with Christianity. But in my case the two did not occur simultaneously. I was an atheist libertarian, classic style. But as soon as I converted to Christianity, I could not remain a libertarian without shame and guilt. So in order to sleep at night, I became a liberal. But I had promised myself I would remain open to becoming a conservative evangelical if I ever had more than 10 million for tax purposes.

Pocket_Fisherman:I'm guessing hipster dude in the article wasn't much of a libertarian, now thinks hes a Buddhist and will lack onto some other "alternative" philosophy in a few years.

Their needs to be a test before you can call yourself a libertarian. I've met hard core moon bad socialists, who claim to be libertarian. You can't give up a philosophy you never really understood to start with.

And here we have a textbook example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy used un-ironically in the wild. Try not to point and laugh.

rev. dave:I read the whole article expecting a few clues that this was either written ironically or satire. Except for his use of interlocutor it all looks legit.

So I will bite. Same thing happened to me, except with Christianity. But in my case the two did not occur simultaneously. I was an atheist libertarian, classic style. But as soon as I converted to Christianity, I could not remain a libertarian without shame and guilt. So in order to sleep at night, I became a liberal. But I had promised myself I would remain open to becoming a conservative evangelical if I ever had more than 10 million for tax purposes.

The fact that there are so many evangelicals that can somehow reconcile the type of bullshiat Joel Olsteen is feeding them and actual biblical gospel has to do with they *want* to believe these two things are reconcilable and they have a cult of personality somewhere backing that belief up. In their small minds they have all the evidence they need and it's not contradictory. EVERYTHING I have ever read about buddhism conflicts with the "fark you, I've got mine jack" philosophy that has become libertarianism today. If he ever thought the two matched he was really, really REALLY farking self delusional.

All pure political theories--libertarianism, communism--fail simply because they assume that somehow all people will think the same way. Libertarianism fails because it assumes everyone will voluntarily contribute for the common good without external constraints like government.

This is demonstrably not true; but they want to believe it anyway because it sounds good.

The WindowLicker:Pocket_Fisherman: I'm guessing hipster dude in the article wasn't much of a libertarian, now thinks hes a Buddhist and will lack onto some other "alternative" philosophy in a few years.

Their needs to be a test before you can call yourself a libertarian. I've met hard core moon bad socialists, who claim to be libertarian. You can't give up a philosophy you never really understood to start with.

And here we have a textbook example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy used un-ironically in the wild. Try not to point and laugh.

Ugh. To be a Scotsman you have to be born in Scotland. No one is born with a particular political philosophy. The NTS fallacy cannot be used when talking about someone's political philosophy or how they label it. What you're doing is the The NTS fallacy fallacy.

Gyrfalcon:Libertarianism fails because it assumes everyone will voluntarily contribute for the common good without external constraints like government.

That is libertarianism from 20 years ago. Today's libertarianism is just "I'm all right, Jack" and nothing else. All the "lazy" people (because we ARE in a meritocracy, right?!?) will cease to be a problem because they'll be dead!